tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 22, 2012 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
is. >> it's going to be dramatic and it is expected eminently. the jerry sandusky case is reaching a conclusion. the jury have reached a verdict after 20 hours of equilibrium racials. we are expecting the verdict at any moment. it will be held in secret in the court and when the judge is satisfied that he has finished his process. we're going to go live to anderson cooper and "ac 360". >> good evening every one. there is breaking news tonight at this hours. we are awaiting a verdict in the jerry sandusky child rape case. 48 charges. originally there were 51 charges, three of them were thrown out. so there are now 48 charges for this jury to consider. seven women on the jury, five men. ten accusers in all, although
only eight actually testified. and a new accuser has come forward, of course. jerry sandusky's adopted son matt. that is not something that the jury is supposed to be considering tond. a scandal the likes of which punxsutawney, pennsylvania has not seen in years. the jury deliberated for 21 years after a trial that was brief but wrenching when it comes to what they heard. defense attorney said he would be shocked if they acquitted his client on all charges. in fact he said he would probably die of a heart attack. we'll know in just a few minutes what will happen. susan candiotti is outside the courthouse, we'll be talking to jeff toobin and mark geregos for legal angles. and susan candiotti, as we're looking right now, we see a lot of people on the courthouse
steps. are those people who have recently gathered or have they been there all along? >> well, throughout the day, people have been hanging around this courthouse around especially as the hours went on into the night, there was a real sense of drama building here, anderson, and a sense of electricity in the air that something was going to happen tonight. why? we're into the second day of deliberations, as you said. they spent about 21 hours. this trial started nine days ago, it has gone so quickly, it's just the sense it's the end of the week, something is going to happen tonight. and anderson, this is a man, jerry sandusky, who called himself a tickle monster, according to one of his accusers. and now we will soon find out whether or not this jury is deciding he is a monster of a different kind or whether they will acquit him of these charges. everyone is wait to go find out. >> as we said, 48 counts is what
the jury has been deliberating now. susan, stick around. i want to bring in our legal panel, criminal defense attorney mark geragos, so does legal analyst jeffrey toobin. mark, you've waited for a lot of juries to come up with a verdict. what are your thoughts at this point of the evening before we know what's happening. >> i think i said the other night that i didn't think it would be a slam dunk for the prosecution. you've got 21 hours worth of deliberation which i think is longer than most people thought they would deliberate. friday is the bewitching hour for most juries and most verd t verdicts and my sentiments would not be that much more different than joes, i think i would be shocked as well if it was an acquit al across the board. >> you say that because of playing the odds or because the prosecution, the preponderance,
that that they proved their case, you believe? >> no. my general feeling on cases like this, when you've got somebody with this kind of attention and this kind of high profile, and there's been 21 hours worth of deliberations and the general feeling is that the evidence was overwhelming, and i think that whoever was holding out, whatever jurors were holding out, they tend to wear down towards the end on a friday afternoon, friday evening when the prospects of returning for another day of deliberations. and that just ends for whatever reason, friday evening or friday afternoon tends to be the bewitching hour and is generally not good for the defendant. >> we're also joined by two former prosecutors, jeff toobin and sunny hostin. jeff what do you think about as you await this jury? because we know that they asked
today to look over the transcripts of testimony by mike mcqueary, one of the coaches who said he saw jerry sandusky in the showers with a very young boy. with jerry sandusky pressed up against this young boy. also, they reviewed a defense witness transcripts who said the initial story that jerry sandusky told him differs from what he said on the stand. >> this is an overwhelming case. his attorney is guilty of the crime of honesty, because he like every one else who has followed this case closely, i think, i don't want to speak for every one, but certainly i speak for many, we'd all have heart attacks if there was an acquit al here, because there was close to know defense in this case. sure, the defense raised the possibility that some of the witnesses had told different versions of the story, they raised the issue some of them might have a financial motive,
but when you have eight defendants that is almost irrefutable evidence and given how long this jury was out, which is not very long, it just all seems to point to a guilty verdict. >> sunny hostin, do you agree with that? >> i think there's no question about that. and the bottom line the questions that the jury asked were the questions that we all expected. because while there were eight victims that testified, there were ten victims that existed in the indictment. so there were two victims unifiu unidentifiedfi and mike mcquear and the janitor testified, that is the evidence that the jury seemed to have been struggling with. the evidence, sort of the
corroborating evidence. so you didn't have alleged victims testifying for those particular points. that would be alleged victims number two and number eight. i agree with jeff. this wasn't really a long deliberation, 48 counts, ten alleged victims. they just got the case on thursday. it's friday evening. and so, this is not a long time. and if you look at history, historically, a quick verdict enures to the benefit of the prosecution. so with a 48-count case, with the jury with a verdict on a friday afternoon, that points historically to a guilty verdict. >> marcia clark is joining us now here in los angeles. you have waited for many juries to come through. what's your reading of a 21-hour deliberation in a case with 48 counts. do you think we're going to see
a conviction tonight? >> i've been predicting a conviction for some time now. the testimony has been supremely compelling. only 21 hours for 48 counts, remember this was a very simple case. there is no dna, you don't have physical experts, you don't have a lot of experts to step through, you don't have a lot of inconsistment statements. when it came down to it, you either believe these young men or you don't. and i think very clearly, i think clearly this verdict is going to show that they did, as they should, believe these young men with regard to the testimony read back of mcqueary and the inconsist event statements that were reportedly made by him. i agree with sunny, i never thought that was a bad sign. he was the only witness to recount what happened. so the jury might want to be very very careful with that particular set of counts and say, you know, we didn't have
the victim here, he described what he described but he didn't do it consistently. so they might cut him on slack. but the rest of them who did appear, i think it's going to be a guilty verdict. >> jeff toobin, we heard from the defense, as you said they didn't put on much of a defense. there were some character witnesses, dottie testified that she has pretty good hearing, she did not hear a child screaming for help as one of the alleged victims said he did. the defense tried to bring up the idea of histrionic personality disorder. do you think that was effective and how they tried to use that to explain some of the behavior of jerry sandusky? >> well, i think the defense got a little undue criticism for raising that. they were not raising it -- they were not raising the histrionic
personality disorder to explain why he was abusing children. they were trying to explain his reaction to the allegations. his response to how he behaved once he was accused. look. i don't think the jury is going to believe it. i don't think histrionic personality disorder had anything to do with this case. but i also don't bee grudge defense attorneys depending their clients. joe amendola did not have a lot to work with. we sometimes criticize defense attorneys for not coming up with a smoking gun of innocence without recognizing something that's just not is there. >> 45 guilty, three not guilty. that's the word i'm just getting right now. 25 felonies. 14 first-degree felonies.
400-how many? 442 years would be the maximum sentence. let's listen to the crowd reaction. again, jerry sandusky declared by a jury of his peers guilty on 45 of 48 counts related to the sexual abuse of a number of children, eight victims who have testified, allegations of abuse over the course of 15 years. 25 felony counts, 14 first-degree felonies. maximum time in jail, 442 years. jeff, what do you make of it?
>> he's going to die in prison, where he should die. this is an evil, evil man. and he was -- penn state will suffer for many many years asking why he was not caught sooner. and i think the evil inside this man probably we'll never understand. but maybe we can learn something about how big, powerful institutions deal with these accusations. because there were children molested after penn state had plenty of warning that this evil man was in their midst and they never shopped him and shame on penn state. >> we're going to talk to jason caroll who was in the courtroom and those people you saw running out were court watchers, you saw jason caroll, we'll talk to him
momentarily about what jerry sandusky's reaction to this was. jason, what happened in the courtroom when this verdict was read, and particularly did you see any reaction from jerry sandusky? >> well, from my vantage point i was able to see reaction from all points of view. first, let me talk about jerry sandusky himself. as he walked into the courtroom, he sat down, he did not look at his family who were pretty much to his right towards the back. as the guilty verdict started to be read, one after another, jerry sandusky looked straight ahead. he remained absolutely without emotion. i then looked to my right. i looked at dottie sandusky, as the first verdict came in, you could hear some of the cheering going on behind me. that's from the crowds that have gathered outside the courthouse. as the verdicts came in, dottie
started to blink over and over again. the daughter sat next to her remained without enegs. the other son john became overcome in emotion after one verdict after another came in. he seemed very distraught and he reached forward and grabbed a bench. sitting behind me was victim number six. he was the one who was assaulted by jerry sandusky in the shower at penn state, inappropriately touched. once all of the verdicts were read, anderson, he was there with some of the members of his family and they all leaned over and began to hugging each other at the bench. when it was all over, after all the guilty verdicts have been read, it's up to the defense to try to argue to keep jerry sandusky under house arrest, that request was denied. he was immediately taken into custody. he was lead out of the courtroom. he was not in handcuffs at that point, but as he was led out,
his adopted son john leaned forward with his head in his hands. it was quite emotion to see both of the different sides. you had victim number nicks in the courtroom -- >> this is jerry sandusky leaving the courthouse. this is a live picture of him leaving the courthouse in handcuffs. >> this is the first we're seeing of jerry sandusky since
the verdict. mark, in a case like this, where is jerry sandusky now taken? what happens to him now? >> they're going to take him straight to their local jail. he doesn't go straight to state prison, because it's going to be pending sentencing. so right now they'll take him, they'll strip off all of his clothes, search him, they'll book him into custody, and they'll probably, most jurisdictions will put him under 24/7 observation, at least for the first 72 hours, suicide watch is what they call it in the nomenclature and that's generally going to be standard operating procedure because they figure people are most distraught immediately after something like this. >> and in terms of sentencinsen
mark, how soon would that likely be? we're told 442 years is the maximum number of years he could receive. what goes into that determination? >> well, they just take what they do is, there's a formula. each count carries with it a time period that's attached to it. mathematically you can do these things so you get hundreds and hundreds of years. it really didn't matter, because a conviction on virtually any of these counts amounts to tant amount to a life sentence for somebody this age. as you look at that picture and my first reaction was, i remember where i was when i first was watching cnn and heard this story and i was kind of sitting in disbelief and i'm now watching this and you know, it's something, it's awfully sad, it's an awful story. but there's something, i think,
even surreal about this crowd over here cheering, kind of like the christians and the lions mentality. it doesn't make you really feel real good about any of this. >> so many families tonight and for many years now broken by the actions of this man, including his own family in many respects. sunny, we've heard now, we just learned in fact yesterday for the first time that matt sandusky, an adopted jerry sandusky, was willing to testify that he had also suffered abuse, something apparently he hadn't told the grand jury, something he only told prosecutors through his attorneys just earlier this week or late last week. is it likely now, given that jerry sandusky has been found guilty on 45 counts, that there would be another trial for any allegations of abuse by matt
sandusky, or is that done? >> i doen know that that's likely. because again, you've got a guilty verdict on 45 out of 48 counts. he's got exposure of almost 500 years. does the state, the commonwealth want to go forward with another prosecution, having matt sandusky having to testify against his adopted father, is that something that really will happen? unlikely, anderson. especially because he did not come forward initially. i don't know that it's necessary in a case like this. unless, of course, matt sandusky feels that he needs that justice since he has reported. i don't know that that is likely, but it certainly is possible. many legal experts are saying that there could be incest charges lodged against jerry sandusky, because while adopted, that is his son. so perhaps we'll see more from this terrible, terrible saga and tragedy. i can't imagine that that he 's
likely. >> marcia clark as we look again at that videotape of jerry sandusky being taken away to a local jail in handcuffs, now knowing that as jeff said he will die in prison, he will never get out, we're told sentencing will be within 90 days, marcia you've been in a lot of court rooms and people are convicted, do you ever have somebody like him who said he has been not guilty all along suddenly admit what he has done. >> not child molesters. others yes. child molesters, never. in my experience handling from both the prosecute and defense side, i have never seen one of them admit to having been even as much as inappropriate. in their own minds they justify it as something that is loving,
if say relationship that no one understands. but to admit aand say yes you've got me and i'm sorry. i don't expecto see that. at most the defense will stand up and say it for him in order to plea for leniency. we accept the jury's verdict, but he's this old, this, that and the other thing. i don't think, though, sandusky will stand up and admit to anything. >> jason, i'm curious, you've been covering this trial from day one. you've talked to the accusers against jerry sandusky, as well as the attorneys, you've talked to sandusky's attorneys as well over the course of months now. when you see him being led out, what stands out to you about this verdict about this evening? vernlthsz well a couple of things that i wasn't able to reveal before because of say gag order but i can now. i think there's a reason why at
least some members of sandusky's family didn't appear to be as emotional as jonathan, his adopted son was. and that is because his attorney -- i'm sorry. we're seeing dottie sandusky now. this is also her leaving, being hugged by well wishers. there are people who have been standing by the sandusky family. she is now walking off. her testimony clearly not swaying jurors as the defense had hoped. jason, i'm sorry. you were saying there are some things you can reveal. >> that speaks to dottie sandusky as you were talking about her leaving the courtroom. inside the courtroom she remained pretty stoic. she was prepared for this. you know, joe amendola told me long ago that he thought this was going to be an uphill battle. he went into this, anderson, knowing that the outcome that we see here tonight was very likely
the outcome that he had said he knew it was coming weeks ago. and so i think in some ways, some members of the family were prepared for this. but on the flip side of this, just a few days ago, when i ran into victim number six standing right outside here not far from this courtroom, you could see the pain on his face. that's the other thing that remains with me. the amount of pain on the acuresers' face when they took the stand. number one when he took the stand, he looked like a shaken young man when he walked up there. he was very frail, he spoke in very soft tones of the i think it was that kind of testimony that really resonated with the jurors. one after another, these young men getting up there and telling these similar stories and the idea that the defense tried to put forth of why they may have waited so long, maybe they were in it for the money, these types of things just didn't seem to hold when it basically came down
to these young man saying that man there did this to me and i'm in pain. anderson? >> and jason, we're waiting to speak with jerry sandusky's cocouncil and also tom klein for victim number five. was there ever any talk of a plea deal? do we know if defense or prosecutors tried to enter into plea discussions. >> i can tell you that was brought up a number of times. the idea of taking a plea. joe amendola had suggested to jerry sandusky early on that this might be the way to go. and i can also tell you that when this whole sort of news sort of wrinkle in the story with matt sandusky his adopted son, came into play, you have to wobder what kind of discussions were happening. of course it was too late. it was discussed not once, not twice but numerous times.
joe amendola told me whenever he brought the subject up, jerry sandusky said i'm innocent, i want to fight this. i want to go to court and fight these charges. so ultimately a defense attorney has to do what his client wants him to do. >> mark geragos, as a defense attorney, what is it like having a conversation with a client where you want them to take a plea and they seem unwilling to enter into that decision. >> my father who was my partner for many years often said look, if they made good decisions, they wouldn't need you. so there is a certain amount of resignation to it. i've gotten into some of the most heated arguments i've ever had in my life with clients over trying to give them or force them into making decisions that a lot of times they don't want to. it's very difficult. when marcia was talking about a class of defendants who have never admitted anything, there is some truth to that.
there are certain kinds of alleged or convicted people who are accused of crimes who never can deal with it for numerous reasons. and when have you that discussion, you try to give a reality check. but at the end of the day, the duty of the defense lawyer, you are their confess sor, you are their counselor, but ultimately you're their advocate and you're there to do what they want you to do within the bounds of your ethical responsibilities. and if the client is telling you that they're innocent and they want to fight it, that's whattor there to do. you're not there to judge them. you are there to give them an honest appraisal of what the odds are. you tell them based on my experience, based on this evidence, based on the quality of the testimony; this is what i think your odds are. you've got to make a decision.
are you willing to risk the rest of your life here. in this case, though, i'm not so sure that a plea deal ever made much sense. because as a practical matter, a plea to one or two counts was as bad as a conviction on all of the counts ultimately, in terms of what the punishment would be. it was basically a kind of roll the dice all or nothing situation for him. i don't know whether you can say he should have done this or that. a client who is telling you i'm innocent and i want to fight this and you give him an honest appraisal, look this is what the odds are, and i've heard it whether in this case or others, that's what you do, you layout what the options are and you go out and fight and leave your blood on the floor. >> i'm joined by carl, co-counsel. how did jerry sandusky react to these verdicts?
we were told about his visual reaction. did he say anything to you? did you have words for him? >> listen. we talked about it. we knew that whatever the jury's verdict was we had to honor it. jerry rose, i saw some tears in his eyes. he's always been a law abiding citizen except for these allegations. as a sign of respect he was allowed to walk out of the court without handcuffs. it's a sign to show that he can be trusted to go along with the process of our democratic system. that will include an appeal of the various issues we have identified and continue to identify. >> he was in handcuffs as he left the building because we just saw pictures of him being placed into the police car. >> absolutely. that's a protocol because any time a person is transported because they have to be. >> in terms of what happens now, i mean, is there -- are there,
and in your opinion, grounds for an appeal on any level? what do you expect from sentencing? >> listen. i can get five continuances for a speeding ticket but joe amendola were not able to get one continuance for jerry sandusky. the judge was very fair to us on many levels but there were legal issues where he made rulings that could be overturned, not because they were per se wrong, but because the law in the area was so unclear. >> what do you mean the law was unclear? >> well, i'll give you an example. accuser number eight, the janitor. the government was allowed to go forward with that on a hearsay statement alone, and as a constitutional issue under idaho versus wright and the court went against us, the risk is that if we get accuserer number eight
over terd, the entire case you can't sort out beyond a reasonable doubt whether that affected the jury's deliberations. all the convictions can come back on that ruling alone. >> at any point, did you try to enter into plea negotiations with the prosecution? did you have to have that discussion at all with jerry sandusky? >> well, there's always plea knnegotiations but whether theye real or meaningful, in this case there was never a meaningful plea offered so it's not even worth discussing. >> does jerry sandusky still say that he is innocent? >> well, jerry sandusky understands that the jury's verdict means he's been found guilty. but he will tell you that he didn't do what was alleged and that's why he's going to appeal. >> and in terms of the new allegations being made now by
matt sandusky, what do you make of that? >> well, i can't go into all the details for one reason in particular which has to do with grand jury secrecy, but i will say that we are not confident that matt would have been a good a witness as people have suggested. and the fact that they he was known by the commonwealth during their case in chief and they chose not to call him should tell you something. >> jeff is also here with me. i know he would like to ask you a question. do you have a question for karl? >> sure. the -- what's your top issue on appeal? you really think a -- eight -- someone convicted of 45 counts of child mow lessation is going to get a conviction overturned because you didn't get a delay in the trial? i mean, you know -- >> that is not going to be -- >> fairly minor issue.
>> a delay in the trial. no. we couldn't get a single continuance. i am not exaggerating when i say we do duis we get six months, eight months to a year. we have a case like this we get literally thousands of pages before discovery, days before trial we were still reading material while the trial was starting. we found the tape that shows that the police led the witnesses. if we had more time to build the case, the jury would have seen things differently. is that a great appellate issue? no. but it will flavor all our other issues. >> what would they have seen differently if you had six more months? >> if we had six more months, we would have undercovered a lot more of what had happened in terms of the leading questions. we had the tape-recording that no one knew about because the government gave it to us but didn't realize they had recorded them leading their own witnesses. >> what do you think the most effective --
>> these are very minor issues -- i mean, there's no allegation that these were invented allegations, were there? there's no allegation that police coached them to lie. leading questions? that's completely conventional police examination. is it not? >> you offibviously weren't at trial to hear the tape played, went off taped, said give us graphic descriptions and said we're turning the tape back on. if you heard that at the trial you would understand my position. >> what do you think was the most effective in terms of the testimony by the prosecution? the evidence that the prosecution presented. was it the eight accusers. >> it's the death by a thousand cuts combierd with mcqueary's testimony and the janitor we can't cross-examination hearsay
testimony. that was problematic for the jury, but we can't cross-examine the guy. i think if you went and asked the person, he would tell you he doesn't remember it being jerry sandusky, but unfortunately he's not competent so we can't bring him to the stand to refute his own statement brought in by somebody else who never reported it up until now. >> thank you very much for being with us. mark gergagos, you just heard defense attorney as well, what do you make of what he said. clearly jeff toobin is expressing a fairly amount of skepticism being effective on an appeal. >> well, look. i've been on the receiving end of judges who don't give you continuances. i'd have to agree with jeff, that's not a winner on appeal. the one argument that i think
they've got that's got some constitutional heft to it is the idea of the guy coming in and giving a hearsay statement. that is something that has been thrashed around in the federal courts at least and now trickles down into the state courts, the right of confrontation. that's an issue that's got a colorable basis on appeal. jeff didn't say it, i think he was probably biting his tongue. there aren't a whole lot of court of appeals justices who are going to be running for their pens or computers to write an opinion to reverse a conviction of jerry sandusky. let's be frank here. at this point they've got a guilty verdict. they've got a conviction on 45 counts. most people are going to want to put this behind them. unfortunately that's the reality of it. i don't think you've got a great chance of getting most cases
reversed on appeal to begin with. this case has got a lot less sex appeal, if you will, pun intended to get it reversed at this point. maybe somewhere down the line on a writ of habus correspo yuus c get an evidentiary hearing that shows statements of police coaching these people or getting them to invent their stories. but -- >> let's listen in to joe amendola the defense attorney for jerry sandusky. >> i'll make some general comments and if you have questions, you can ask. >> can't hear you on the mike. >> can you hear me now? >> yes. >> well, what do we do about that? do these things come off? okay. >> just put the mikes down and
talk. >> the sandusky family is very disappointed obviously by the verdict of the jury, but we respect their verdict. you may recall, for those of you who have been with this case from the beginning, that we said that we had a tidal wave of public opinion against jerry sandusky and the charges filed against him. that he had been determined to be guilty by the public and the media from the very outset of the charges, and that we had an uphill battle. i use the analogy that we were attempting to climb mount everrest from the bottom of the mount. obviously we didn't make it. we always felt that jerry's fairer shake would come from the jury and we still believe that. the jury obviously believed the commonwealth evidence, that's
clear from their verdict. i've been asked already inside is that a surprise. and no, it was the expected outcome. because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against jerry sandusky. you may also recall that we asked for a continuance on a number of occasions on the basis we needed more time to sift through thousands of pages of materials to determine what other types of defenses we might have, but due to judicial constrictions, we were forced to proceed to trial at this time. i think most of you would agree with me that had someone said last november in december that we would have a trial in early june, you would have agreed that is not very likely at all. and here we are with a trial that has concluded and it's the latter part of june after three weeks in court. we have some appeal issues we'll pursue. we feel we have some decent
appeal issues. the prosecution handled the case in an exemplary manner. we congratulate them. the judge in this case was marvelous. he was fair, he was firm. he was reasonable with everything we asked for, the only disagreement we had is our request for a continuance, but aside for that, it would be my privilege to serve in front of judge clee land in the future in any sort of case knowing that he would give a defendant and give counsel a fair shake at a fair trial. we believe he did an ourt standing job. a number of people have asked me about what happened with jerry sandusky not testifying after we
spoke about that. now i can talk about it. we had a gag order in place which prevented us from doing so. but late thursday afternoon, the commonwealth asked the court to allow the commonwealth to keep its case open. at least overnight because it had just come into information that it wanted to investigate. later thursday evening, i received a call from the commonwealth attorneys at which time they indicated to me, matt sandusky had gone to them and contacted them late thursday afternoon and then made a statement to them thursday evening indicating that jerry had abused him years earlier and that they were thinking about introducing matt sandusky as a witness at jerry's trial in this matter. i objected. the court was involved in that conversation. i indicated that our whole case was predicated with jerry
testifying. and jerry had always wanted to testify. however, the next day, the commonwealth attorney advised me it would not call matt sandusky in its case in chief. that it would reserve the right to call him as a rebuttal witness, depending on what evidence we presented. that created a real dilemma for us, because if we call jerry sandusky now as a witness, it would almost certainly, and we looked at all the different ways we could avoid it, but it most certainly would have resulted in the commonwealth being permitted calling matt sandusky in rebuttal. so reluctantly, and i say reluctantly because jerry still wanted to testify, he denied he ever had inappropriate contact with his son, matt. and in fact, and in fairness to jerry, the remaining number of his children, as well as his wife, felt the same way and were
prepared to testify against matt if matt came forward in jerry's trial in this matter and indicated that jerry had abused him. but that being said, we decided as a legal strategy position, that to put jerry on the stand to set him up to have matt come in to this jury and testify against him would have absolutely destroyed whatever chances he had at acquit al. and so upon our advice as his attorneys, he reluctantly agreed not to testify. of course that resulted in matt sandusky not testifying and we felt that that might at least give jerry an opportunity to be acquitted of some if not more of the charges involved against him. so that was the reason jerry didn't testify in his trial, contrary to my opening remarks that he intended to. i didn't smoke screen you, i didn't mislead you.
he fully intended to testify. >> reporter: 45 out of 48 counts does this prove that your client is sick? >> the question is does the fact that 45 out of 48 counts were turned as verdicts of guilty by the jury, does that prove to me that my client is sick, and the answer is no. you know folks, there are lots of people sitting in jails all across this country who are innocent. there have been people, lots of people -- may i finish? lots of people, lots of people over the years who have been executed for murder and later determined to have been innocent. so what this tells me is this -- >> you think he's innocent? >> this jury -- folks in the media, can i finish?
what this proves to me is i believe the jury acted genuinely and in good faith, i believe the jury acted on the evidence that was presented to it. and i don't dispute or have any problem with the jury's verdict. we had a good jury. >>. [ inaudible ] >> the question is why would matt come forward now? you have to ask matt. >> he was there, though, the first day. >> you may remember, is what i'm going to say is exactly what you just commented. you may remember the first day of trial, matt was seated with his family and actually, according to family members during the testimony of one of the witnesses was kind of mocking the witness and indicating that he didn't believe what he witness was saying. we have no idea what happened. and that's something that matt and whoever represents him will have to tell you later.
[ inaudible ] >> we had anticipated matt would be one of our witnesses and we were shocked by it. his family was absolutely shocked by it. his parents, his siblings were distraught by it. but that's what we were facing. >> what did jerry tell you about it. >> jerry said that matt has had problems ever since matt was with them and that these problems had led matt at times to do things that were irrational. he had problems as a juvenile and there were explanations for it, but unfortunately as i've said to jerry, that if matt were to testify, because of the fact that this was a surprise situation, the jury would undoubtedly believe him, regardless of what evidence they had [ inaudible ] >> jerry indicated he was disappointed with the verdict.
>> reporter: is he on suicide watch. >> i don't know. >> reporter: was matt living in the house when the trial started. >> matt, i can't say was living in the house, but his parents told me matt had been staying there temporarily recently. apparently there's some issue with his home life where he was staying with his parents. >> reporter: [ inaudible ] >> we had the continuance requests for one. we had the inability of one of our sperpts to appear in court. we have the voluminous amount of discovery materials which we didn't have a chance to review. i mean, i don't know what you folks thought about the trial, but we were running many days by the seat of our pants just trying to catch up, maybe it didn't look like that, but that's the condition we found ourselves in. we also have some trial issues, we have some evidentiary issues which we'll address at motions which can't be filed until after the sentencing.
is that it, folks? >> essentially the sentence that jerry will receive will be a life sentence. >> listening to joe amendola, the defense attorney, lead defense attorney for jerry sandusky. claiming that there are a number of issues which they're going to seek on appeal. but as we've been discussing with mark geragos and jeff toobin, not a really huge number of issues that could really alter the fact that jerry sandusky is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. 442 years the maximum number of years he could receive for his conviction on 45 counts related to the sexual abuse of children. here are prosecution lawyers
let's listen in. good evening, everyone, and thank you all for your patience tonight. i'm attorney general linda kelly and joining me are members of the prosecution team and investigators on this case. some of whom who you probably recognize from their roles in the courtroom -- can you hear me? all right. and others who you may recognize from their behind the scenes work in this case.
we have joseph here, frank and janel from the attorney generals who were the trial team in this case. major brett wagner from the state police. special agent tony and regional director randy feathers from our state college office. these men and woman, along with many other agents, troopers, investigators, attorneys and other staff of the attorney general's office and the pens veinia state police have worked tirelessly for the last few years to bring these charges to
light, to bring this case to court and to see the day that this defendant, a serial child predator, who committed horrific acts upon his victim causing life-long and life-changing consequences for all of them has been held accountable for his crimes. and i'd like to thank each of the individuals that i just mentioned for the very important role that they played in bringing this case to today's verdict. i also want to offer my most sincere thanks to all the young men, the victims in this case, who came forward to bravely testify during this trial. the and to finally put a stop to the crimes that have been committed by this defendant.
they've shown great strength and courage during this investigation. candidly and sometimes chillingly telling their stores not only to the jury in a packed courtroom audience, but also to the entire world. it was incredibly difficult for some of them to unearth long buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hand of this defendant, and most of us cannot possibly fully comprehend what they endured while testifying in that packed courtroom. this trial was not something that they sought, but rather something that forced them to face the demons of their past and to reveal what happened to them and their childhood when they met jerry sandusky. we hope that our search for justice in this case will help them and other victims who perhaps have been watching from
afar, and perhaps nearby, as this case unfolded. one of the recurring themes of the witness's testimony, which came from the voices of the victims themselves in this case was, who would believe a kid? and the answer to that question is, we here in bell font, pennsylvania would believe a kid. . as reflected by this verdict that we've all just heard, a jury of 12 people here in bell font p.a. most definitely would and did believe a kid. although we know that the cars
that these victims bear can't be erased by events in a courtroom, we hope that the outcome of this case not only allows these victims to heal and to begin the process of recovering and rebuilding their lives, but that it also encourages other victims of sexual abuse to come forward. this is a crime that thrives in darkness. it's fed by fear and threats, shame and secrecy. where predators carefully seek the most vulnerable prey. while often they themselves are cloaked in respectability that sometimes is almost beyond reproach. of all the thousands of cases that stream through our judicial system, every once in a while, one will, for a brief moment, capture the attention of the eyes of the world. mesmerizing us until it plays itself out and its stardom
begins to fade. i think that we've all recognized since the return of the grand jury presentment in this matter that this was one of those uncommon cases. and that the eyes of the world have since then been upon us. you the media have covered the proceedings in this case with exceptional attentiveness and thoroughness and you've produced much thoughtful commentary and insightful analysis over the course of this trial. resulting, i think, in the raising of the consciousness of your readers and listeners -- sir i'll answer that question if you'll wait until the end of this. resulting in the raising of consciousness of your readers and listeners and increased awareness by the public of the monday trus acts that can be
committed by sexual pred dors like the defendant in this case. who live among us, who may appear to be pillars of the community, coaching icons, sports legends and charitable executives, but with planning, prey upon the vulnerable members of our so side. they carefully select their victims, in this case as you know, underprivileged kids, kids from broken homes, foster homes, one-parent families and many of them having other issues like learning, emotional and behavioral problems to deal with as well. and all of them in their time of need turned to the charity known as the second mile where we now know that jerry sandusky trolled
for victims. there are many important lessons that can be learned from this case. one of them is we can't let the national focus that this case has brought upon sexual abuse fade after the cameras have turned off and d media has shifted their attention to the next important story. we have to continue to focus on child sexual abuse and to shine a bright light in those dark, dark plaszs where the jerry sanduskys of the world lurk. places which exist in our society. we need to protect our schirn and learn from the lessons in this case. and for those who fail to respond to reports of sexual abruise, their behavior is abon nabl and has tragic consequences. these kids need our help. they need our support. and we as a society must not turn our backs or close our eyes or try to convince ourselves
that it doesn't exist when it in fact does exist. this is a law enforcement issue, and every police department and investigative agency across the country should take note of this case and ensure that every claim of child sexual abuse is addressed promptly and investigated thoroughly with the understanding that where there's one victim, there very likely are more. this is also an institutional issue. every institution that comes into contact with children should operate under the premise that it's their legal responsibility to report suspected child abuse. the legal part of this is easy to grasp. but more importantly, there's a moral and ethical imperative to do so. concealing or attempting to minimize this type of crime is unacceptable, as well as unconscionable and should not and cannot be tolerated. this is also a family issue, and
hopefully parents across the country will learn from this case how important it is to be vigilant about your child's personal interactions with others and to make sure that your child is conscious of their own safety and aware that they must report these types of incidents. and finally, this is a community issue. because outside of our roles as prosecutors and police officers and professionals, we all have an interest in keeping our communities and particularly our children, safe and secure and protecting our children who really are truly our most valuable natural resource. and they should always be our priority. every one of us has a responsibility to be aware of the possibility of this type of crime and to speak out if you note something troubling. i thank all of you for your patience and dedication in covering this case. your work has carried this story
and the lessons that go hand in hand with it and it's helped to raise awareness about this kind of issue. if there are people out there watching right now who have been victims of sexual abuse, as part of any case anywhere, i encourage you to contact authorities in your community and seek the support and assistance that you need. there are no instant solutions to this problem, but working together we can hope to make progress. we can help the voices of victims be heard and we can try and drive away the demons and the darkness and lift the veil of secrecy that allows predators to hide and operate in our midst. the commonwealth's interest in a case like this, if this kind of criminal prosecution, is not merely to win the case, but to see that justice